Governance, Equity and the Green Event Report

List
13-15 February 2018, Nairobi, Kenya

Governance,
Equity and the
Green List
Developing a multi-stakeholder and participatory governance
assessment methodology for protected areas
Author information
This report was written by:
Francesca Booker and Phil Franks, IIED, UK.

About the event

For more information please contact Phil Franks,
phil.franks@iied.org.

Acknowledgements
The workshop ‘Governance, Equity and the Green List’ was
funded by the UK’s Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation
(ESPA) programme with additional support from IUCN who
funded the attendance of the Kenyan participants. The governance
assessment methodology under discussion has been developed
by IIED in collaboration with GIZ and IUCN over the last three
years. We wish to thank all the contributors to the site-level
governance assessments that have informed the development of
the methodology, and all the particpants of the workshop for their
contributions during the event.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) helps the

world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment
and development challenges. It is the world’s oldest and largest
global environmental organisation, with more than 1,200 government
and NGO members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some
160 countries. IUCN works on biodiversity, climate change,
energy, human livelihoods and greening the world economy, by
supporting scientific research, managing field projects, and bringing
governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together to develop
policy, laws and best practice. www.iucn.org

IIED is a policy and action research organisation. We promote

sustainable development to improve livelihoods and protect the
environments on which these livelihoods are built. We specialise in
linking local priorities to global challenges. IIED is based in London
and works in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and the
Pacific, with some of the world’s most vulnerable people. We work
with them to strengthen their voice in the decision-making arenas
that affect them — from village councils to international conventions.

Published by IIED, March, 2018

http://pubs.iied.org

International Institute for Environment and Development

80-86 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8NH, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 3463 7399
Fax: +44 (0)20 3514 9055
www.iied.org
@iied
www.facebook.com/theIIED
Download more publications at http://pubs.iied.org
IIED is a charity registered in England, Charity No.800066
and in Scotland, OSCR Reg No.SC039864 and a company
limited by guarantee registered in England No.2188452.
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

Contents
1 Introduction 2
1.1 Background 2
1.2 Workshop overview 2
2. Day one: sharing the results of site-level governance assessment 4
2.1 Introducing the concepts – governance, equity and social impact 4
2.2 Results of the governance assessment from sites in Bangladesh, Philippines,
Kenya and Uganda 6
2.3 Introducing IUCN’s Green List Certification 8
3. Day two: reflecting on the IIED governance assessment methodology 10
3.1 Introducing the IIED governance assessment methodology 10
3.2 Group 1: reflections on using IIED’s governance assessment methodology 10
3.3 Group 2: refining and clarifying key concepts and relationships between social
impacts, governance and equity 12
4. Day three: governance assessment facilitator experience sharing and
training 14
4.1 Understanding the IIED good governance principles 14
4.2 Planning a governance assessment 15
Annex 1 List of participants 16

www.iied.org 1
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Good governance is fundamental to effective protected area (PA) design, planning, and management
operations, and the degree to which these are equitable in terms of the recognition and engagement of
key actors, and the distribution of benefits and costs/burdens. Achieving both effective and equitable PA
management is central to international PA policy (ie Aichi target 11).
Site-level PA governance assessment assesses the quality of the governance arrangements of a PA in
relation to best practice which is defined in terms of a set of good governance principles. The goal of
any governance assessment is improving governance quality and, in some situations, exploring
possibilities for a change of governance type. However, different governance assessment
methodologies contribute to this in different ways according to their objectives – whether they be health
checking, diagnostic or for monitoring.
A. As a Health check: to determine strengths and challenges of governance arrangements
and thereby identify issues that need some attention.
B. As a Diagnostic: to understand the underlying causes of existing challenges and thereby
identify actions that could improve the situation.
C. For Monitoring: to establish a baseline against which changes in governance (hopefully
improvements) at a given site can be measured over time.
The workshop ‘Governance, Equity and the Green List’, focused specifically on the multi-stakeholder
assessment methodology that is currently being developed by the International Institute for Environment
and Development (IIED) in partnership with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). This methodology has been
developed primarily for learning to support a process of governance strengthening (A), but this
workshop also explored how the assessment might be strengthened and tailored for all three
applications (A-C).

1.2 Workshop overview

‘Governance, Equity and the Green List’ was held at Maasai Lodge (Nairobi, Kenya) and IUCN Nairobi
Headquarters from 13 -15th February 2018. Presentations and discussions over the three days focused
on efforts by IIED and partners GIZ and IUCN to develop a multi-stakeholder participatory methodology
to assess governance quality at individual PAs and conservation areas. The attendees also explored
the relationship of governance assessment to the equity element of Aichi Target 11 of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the opportunities for the IUCN Green List Standard to strengthen
governance – particularly for Kenya’s growing number of wildlife conservancies.
A range of individuals were invited to the workshop including site-level support organisations who are
involved in the day to day workingss of a PA or conservation area and are familiar with the opportunities
and challenges related to good governance. All these individuals have experience with implementing
the IIED governance assessment (GA) methodology. Participants of the workshop also included
national and international NGO and technical support organisations and researchers grappling with
issues of governance, equity and the social impacts of PAs and conservation areas. Additionally,
members of the CBD Secretariat attended the workshop to gain further understanding on how to
connect experience with issues of governance and equity at the site-level to international policy,
including Aichi Target 11. The full list of participants is summarised in Annex 1.
Workshop objectives

1. Day 1: The objective of the first day was to identify and characterise key governance and equity
issues emerging from experience with the IIED GA methodology at seven sites in four countries
(Bangladesh, Philippines, Kenya and Uganda).
2. Day 2: The second day of the workshop had two objectives as the workshop attendees split into two
groups according to their expertise and experience. The first group made up of site-level governance

www.iied.org 2
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

assessment facilitators critiqued the IIED GA methodology and considered outstanding issues such
as monitoring progress over time and contributing to improved policy and practice at site-level PAs
and conservation areas. The second group of participants, with backgrounds in academia and
national and international policy, focused on refining and clarifying key concepts and relationships
between governance assessment of PAs, social assessment of PAs and equity.
3. Day 3: On the final day, a workshop was held for site-level governance assessment facilitators
aimed at delivering focused capacity building so that the facilitators can lead a GA process in the
future and train others to facilitate the GA process.

‘Governance, Equity and the Green List’ workshop participants on days 1 and 2

www.iied.org 3
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

2. Day one: sharing the results of site-level

governance assessment
2.1 Introducing the concepts – governance, equity and social impact
IIED Senior Researcher, Phil Franks, opened the workshop by presenting to attendees IIED’s
understanding of the core concepts of governance, equity and social impact in the context of PA
conservation.
Governance of PAs and associated development activities is about who defines the overall objectives
and how, and the allocation of responsibility and accountability for delivering on these objectives. An
important distinction should be made between PA governance type and PA governance quality
(commonly referred to as good governance). PA governance type concerns who has the legal authority
to govern the PA, and there are four main types:

• Governance by government
• Shared governance by two or more actors working in collaboration
• Private governance by private organisations or individuals
• Community governance by Indigenous Peoples and/or local communities.

Governance quality is typically described by principles. IIED have condensed IUCN’s 40 key
considerations on good governance (as detailed in Governance of Protected Areas: From
understanding to action) to 11 good governance principles that are relevant to site-level governance
assessment. The IIED good governance principles were presented to attendees alongside IUCN’s five
broad good governance principles – see Table 1.

Equity is a core issue for PA management and governance both in terms of the ethics of conservation
and in terms of the effectiveness and sustainability of conservation outcomes. Equity has three distinct
dimensions – recognition, procedure, and the distribution of benefits and costs and their ultimate impact
on human wellbeing (social impacts).
A social impact (of a protected area and associated conservation and development activities) is a
good or bad thing that in some way affects human wellbeing. A positive social impact is a benefit, while
a negative social impact is cost, burden or harm from the PA and associated development activities.
Phil Franks explained that IIED’s governance assessment explores issues of governance and equity,
which are closely related. Indeed, the first of the nine good governance principles relate to both
governance and equity. However, governance assessment does not go as far as to understand the
impact on human wellbeing (social impacts) – an important consideration of equity. To understand a
PA’s impact on human wellbeing, a social impact assessment (ie Social Assessment for Protected
Areas, SAPA) is more appropriate.

www.iied.org 4
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

Table 1. IIED and IUCN’s Good Governance Principles for PAs

IIED PA good governance principles IUCN good governance principles

1. Recognition and respect of all relevant actors and Legitimacy and Voice
their knowledge, values & institutions

2. Effective participation of relevant actors in decision- Legitimacy and Voice

making

3. Recognition and respect for the rights of all relevant Fairness and Rights
actors

4. Fair and effective processes for dispute resolution Fairness and Rights

5. Effective measures to mitigate negative social Fairness and Rights

impacts

6. Fair sharing of benefits according to a targeting Fairness and Rights

strategy agreed by relevant actors

7. Transparency supported by timely access to relevant Accountability

information

8. Accountability for fulfilling responsibilities, other Accountability

actions and inactions

9. Fair and effective enforcement of laws and Fairness and Rights / Performance
regulations

10. Achievement of conservation and other objectives Performance

11. Effective coordination and collaboration between Direction

different actors, sectors and levels

www.iied.org 5
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

2.2 Results of the governance assessment from sites in Bangladesh,

Philippines, Kenya and Uganda
Attendees heard seven presentations detailing experience with site-level governance assessment using
IIED’s GA methodology.
1. Sundarbans, Bangladesh

2. Augsan Marsh, Philippines

3. Lake Mburo, Uganda
4. Mara North Conservancy, Kenya

5. Kalama Conservancy, Kenya

6. Kanamai Co-management area and Tengefu, Kenya
7. Ol Lentille Conservancy, Kenya

These sites represent a diverse range of governance types

including state governance (Lake Mburo), private governance (Ol
Lentille), community governance (Kalama Conservancy) and
shared governance between communities and government
(Sundarbans, Augsan Marsh) or the private sector and
communities (Mara North Conservancy).
Lead facilitators from each of the sites shared information about
the different rightsholders and stakeholders involved in the GAs,
the five to six good governance principles prioritised for in depth
interrogation and why, the results from the GAs – so what is
working and what is not working at the PAs or conservation
areas related to the good governance principles – and some of the actions taken since the GAs.
Presentations are available on request (from francesca.booker@iied.org), though some of the key
governance and equity issues at sites are summarised in Table 2.
Following the presentations, attendees had time to ask questions relevant to specific sites or make
general comments and reflections about the GA methodology and site-level results. Important plenary
reflections following the presentations included:

• Reporting up – how do we use site-level GA results on governance and equity to inform

system and/or international levels? Participants highlighted that the IIED GA Methodology
produces valuable insights on governance and equity for site-level PAs and conservations areas.
However, questions remain about the reporting process of how this site-level information can be
shared to inform system level understanding of governance and equity across PAs and
conservation areas. Furthermore, questions were asked about how site-level assessment can
inform on countries’ international commitments. Important questions that need to be considered as
part of the compilation of an IIED GA methodology manual and guidance include – who is
responsible for ensuring site-level GA results are shared at different levels – site level, systems
level and international level? Are these results being reported to the relevant authorities that are
reporting at the international level? It was suggested that in all cases, as a very minimum, the CBD
focal point should be aware of a site-level GAs, including the results and suggested action
points/next steps.

• Contribution vs attribution – how do we understand the GA’s contribution to improving

governance and equity at the site or systems level? Across the seven presentations, there were
many good examples of important next steps/action points that are currently being pursued to
improve governance and equity. However, participants acknowledged that it is hard to understand
the role of the GA in triggering such actions, or whether such action would have occurred
regardless. While it may be hard to attribute any specific actions to the GA (because often there are
multiple reasons for action), a lot more needs to be done to understand the contribution of the GA.

www.iied.org 6
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

As our GIZ Bangladesh colleagues underlined, this is an important task to illustrate the value of the
GA.
Table 2. Some of the key governance and equity related challenges emerging from GAs at
Bangladesh, Philippines, Kenya and Uganda

Principle Example challenge

1. Recognition and respect of all • IPs rights known but not fully exercised / enjoyed
relevant actors and their • Some community members do not know their rights
knowledge, values and
institutions
2. Effective participation of all • Resource users have been refused membership of co-
relevant actors in decision- management committees
making • Exclusion of women in community decision making
bodies
• Elections of community leaders are undemocratic
• Influence on decisions is from community leaders and
largely ignores local people
• Some parts of the PAs or conservation areas have
fewer representatives
• Notice for community meetings is not timely
• Political interference in decision-making
• Women’s involvement in decision making is very
limited
3. Recognition and respect for the (Not assessed so far in the seven GAs)
rights of all relevant actors
4. Fair and effective processes for • No mechanism to resolve over-lapping land titles
dispute resolution issued by different agencies
• Unresolved disputes leading to increasing resentment
of Park authorities
• Lack of forums to prevent disputes
• No formal structures for dispute resolution between
rightsholders and stakeholders
5. Effective measures to mitigate • Negative impacts of conservation are not recognised
negative social impacts eg no access to water for livestock
• No support for human wildlife conflict
6. Fair sharing of benefits • Community members do not attend community based
according to a strategy agreed natural resource governance related meetings as there
by relevant actors are no benefits
• Beneficiaries are not necessarily the intended target
group
• Alternative income projects are provided without
consultation with the target groups
• Community members do not have the opportunity to
explain their development needs before interventions
are brought
• Little involvement of community members in decision-
making on benefit sharing
• Women are not consulted about the allocation of
conservation related benefits
• Nepotism or clannism affecting access to employment
opportunities
• Limited employment of women in conservancies
7. Transparency supported by • Private investors do not share information on bed night
timely access to relevant fees in an easily accessible format
information • Committee members do not properly inform the people
they represent

www.iied.org 7
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

• Women lack basic information on the conservancy or

protected area
• Financial expenditure related to the PA or conservation
area is not always open or clear
8. Accountability for fulfilling • Communities are not aware of the responsibilities of
responsibilities, other actions the co-management institutions
and inactions • There are no mechanisms for community members to
know if their leaders are performing their
responsibilities
• Loss of revenue sharing funds due to corruption
• No/ limited follow up of community development
projects
9. Fair and effective enforcement • Limitations of working with community-based
of laws and regulations volunteers
• Community rangers find it hard to enforce law on family
and friends
• Illegal invaders are heavily armed and so it is difficult to
respond
• Rangers are bribed to ignore illegal grazing
• People caught engaging in illegal activities escape
prosecution due to political influence
• Community members feel that there is not enough
investigation before prosecution
• Historical cases of torture and allegations of loss of life
10. Achievement of conservation • Conflicting conservation and development objectives at
and other objectives efficiently the site-level
• Conservation and/or social objectives are too ambitious
• There are no indicators to know how well actors are
achieving their objectives
• Failure to control human-wildlife conflict undermines
social and conservation objectives
11. Effective coordination and • Deficiency between government and non-government
collaboration between different line agencies in coordination of activities
actors, sectors and levels

2.3 Introducing IUCN’s Green List Certification

To complete day one of the workshop, IUCN’s
Bea Chataigner introduced the IUCN Green
List Certification. The Green List is an
incentive measure for PAs and conservation
areas to self-assess and improve their own
performance, and to learn and share
successful solutions across sites. The mission
of the certification is “to recognise and globally
increase the number of PAs and conservation
areas that are fairly governed, effectively
managed and achieving their conservation
outcomes”.
There are four main components to the Green
List Standard – (1) good governance, (2)
sound planning and design, (3) effective
management, and (4) conservation outcomes
(see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Four components of the Green List Standard

www.iied.org 8
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

PAs and conservation areas that want to be Green List Certified are assessed against 17 criteria across
these four components to understand whether they are achieving quality. Within the good governance
component of the Green List Standard the focus is on:
1. Guarantee legitimacy and voice

2. Achieve transparency and accountability

3. Enable capacity to respond adaptively
The process of certification includes self-assessment with mentor support, review by an international
auditor and an IUCN Green List Panel.
For the African continent there are 17 priority countries with the Green List’s strategy for expansion
between 2017 and 2020. The first priority countries include Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon,
Gabon, Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.

www.iied.org 9
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

3. Day two: reflecting on the IIED governance

assessment methodology
3.1 Introducing the IIED governance assessment methodology
IIED Researcher, Francesca Booker, presented an overview of the governance assessment
methodology and process.
Key points included that the methodology is primarily designed for use by key local stakeholders (eg PA
managers) to strengthen PA governance and thereby the effectiveness and equity of PA conservation
at that site. The methodology comprises an analytical framework of principles, a multi-stakeholder
assessment process, and methods and tools for the five phases of the assessment process: (1)
preparation, (2) scoping, (3) information collection (key informant interviews and focus group
discussions), (4) self-assessment and (5) action planning. A governance assessment is expected to
prioritize five (maximum six) of the good governance principles for further interrogation during the
assessment process, and not all eleven principles. This is due to the time it takes to facilitate a
meaningful discussion on the principles, and principles are prioritised according to ‘hot’ issues at the
site – as decided by all the rightsholders and stakeholders that are involved in the process through
voting or consensus decision making.

A comprehensive users’ manual on governance and equity assessment will be published by IIED in
April/May 2018.

3.2 Group 1: reflections on using IIED’s governance assessment

methodology
The first group of site-level governance assessment facilitators with experience of the IIED GA
methodology critiqued the approach and considered outstanding issues such as monitoring progress
over time and contributing to improved policy and practice at site-level PAs and conservation areas.
The group discussion revealed many insights summarised here according to the relevant phase of the
GA process.
Phase 1 – Scoping

• Sometimes it is difficult to attract key stakeholders (particularly government actors) to participate in

the GA. This may be due to reservations in engaging in an approach that challenges the status quo.
Also, often attending stakeholder workshops or key informant interviews is not high on individual’s
priorities. Guidance should be provided on how to explain the GA in a way that shows value to
different actors and secures their support and engagement.

• The translation of the principles from English to the local language is difficult but is a key step in the
implementation of the GA that should not be overlooked. It is important that the team of facilitators
and note-takers undertaking the GA agree on the language that should be used to translate the
principles to ensure the consistency of the GA approach and the integrity of the GA results.
Guidance should be provided to ensure that certain terms are not translated too narrowly, for
example, benefit sharing should not be translated in a way that implies only financial benefits.

• Even with good translation practices, challenges persist with understanding the GA good
governance principles. Often discussion with key informant interviewees and focus group attendees
is limited to their interpretation and understanding of the concepts and terminology. It is hard to get
beyond this, even when using probing questions.
Phase 2 – Data collection and analysis

• The challenges of facilitation should not be underestimated. Facilitators need to have a good
understanding of the good governance principles and should know (or be able to appreciate) the
local context and history of the assessment site. Facilitators should also be sensitive to and able to
manage power dynamics at the site-level to ensure that different points of view are shared in a safe
space that does not lead to conflict. They also need to be perceived as independent by the actors

www.iied.org 10
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

participating in the GA. The IIED GA methodology should consider having minimum criteria for
selecting facilitators and/or some guidance.

• The challenges of note-taking should not be underestimated. Note-takers need to be able to

demonstrate some understanding of good governance and the local context. They need to be able
to be sensitive to the way that people might articulate governance issues indirectly – as, at times, it
may be uncomfortable (or even dangerous) for people to explicitly state contentious governance
challenges. Note-takers need to be able to recognise this and capture all relevant points. They also
need to be perceived as independent by the actors participating in the GA. The IIED GA
methodology should consider having minimum criteria for selecting note-takers and/or some
guidance.
Phase 4 – Next steps

• A lot of the gains so far from piloting sites in integrating the GA results and ideas for action into the
relevant site-level planning processes have been incidental, or have occurred because of an active
NGO partner that convened the GA. More guidance is needed on identifying opportunities, perhaps
during the scoping phase, for integrating the GA results into relevant site and system level planning
processes.

• The IIED GA methodology should consider suggesting that the GA process has an institutional
home. For example, a local supporting agency could convene the GA process and commit
resources up front to important next steps such as: (a) communicating the results, (b) convening an
action planning meeting and (c) supporting a dialogue process should any conflict emerge from the
GA process. The methodology might also consider how best to include local champions that could
support next steps at various site and system levels.

• Next steps include the communication of results, but more guidance is needed on how to package
and target GA results to different actors, for example, donors, national supporting agencies and
NGOs, national government, local supporting agencies and NGOs and local people - including
rightsholders and stakeholders. Additionally, while communication of the GA results is crucial,
communicating what action is happening because of the GA process is equally important and
should not be overlooked.

• An important gap in the IIED GA methodology is a clear tool or guidance on how to monitor
progress on the good governance principles over time. The IIED GA methodology provides
important baseline information, but much of the information is qualitative and it will be hard to track
changes over time. A monitoring tool should also consider tracking actions taken as a result of the
GA process. More guidance is additionally needed on how to measure contribution (rather than
attribution) of the GA process to site or system level changes in governance quality.
General comments

• All the facilitators expressed that the timeline for the IIED GA methodology should be up to 15 days
for larger sites. Facilitators expressed that it was useful to work on the GA methodology on a full
time rather than part time basis, to avoid distractions, and allow the team to become absorbed in
the learning process.

• Facilitators noted difficulties in managing community expectations. It can be difficult for facilitators
to explain to community rightsholders and stakeholders what might happen next after the
governance assessment, especially as next steps might be discrete in nature and not have an
obvious impact on the day to day challenges of people’s lives.

• An important strength of the IIED GA methodology is that it gives rightsholders and stakeholders a
platform to share their voice on things that are working or not working related to governance of a
PA or conservation area – often local people (especially women) have rarely (or never) had such
opportunities. Facilitators noted, however, that there is a risk that local people may become
frustrated or disempowered once the GA process ends if there is no follow up or identification of
another platform for people to continue to voice their concerns.

www.iied.org 11
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

3.3 Group 2: refining and clarifying key concepts and relationships

between social impacts, governance and equity
The second group of participants, with backgrounds in academia and national and international policy,
focused on refining and clarifying key concepts and relationships between governance assessment of
PAs, social assessment of PAs and equity. The following diagram summarises the discussion.

Comments:

• The boundary of the PA (in green) is the boundary of PA and PA-related activities that are
under the governance arrangements of the PA not the physical boundary of the PA. Extending
beyond this boundary are other conservation and development activities that in some way
support PA conservation but are not under governance arrangements of the PA. In other words
the diagram shows the PA as an institution rather than PA as a physical entity.

• Impacts on wellbeing include the full range of impacts, social, economic, cultural etc.

www.iied.org 12
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

• Our understanding of human wellbeing is based on the three-dimensional framework

comprising an objective (or material) dimension, a relational dimension, and a subjective
dimension. PA Impacts will contribute to changes in human-wellbeing in all three dimensions.

• The extent to which a specific impact of the PA will actually affect human wellbeing depends on
a number of contextual factors, notably the vulnerability of those affected. Thus it is important
that social assessment looks at both the impacts and changes in wellbeing.

• The CBD secretariat is looking for generic indicators of social impact, governance and equity
that could be used to assess progress versus the “equitable management” element of Aichi
target 11. With the “effective management” element they are simply using the number of PA
sites that have completed a management effectiveness assessment and implemented some
follow-up activities in response to the assessment results. A similar approach could be used for
equity if a simply equity assessment tool existed. This approach assumes that conducting an
assessment and responding to at least one result is a proxy for progress in PA management
effectiveness – it is but sets a low bar. Setting a higher bar in terms of a minimum score from
effectiveness assessment in not an option because comparison between sites is not meaning
full with the self-assessment approaches that are generally used – likewise with equity.

www.iied.org 13
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

4. Day three: governance assessment facilitator

experience sharing and training

Expert GA facilitators from Bangladesh, Philippines, Kenya, Uganda and Zambia

On day three, site-level governance assessment facilitators came together at IUCN Headquarters to
share experiences with understanding the good governance principles, to practice planning a GA
process and to impart their top tips when undertaking a GA.

4.1 Understanding the IIED

good governance principles
Dr Medard Twinamatsiko led a group exercise
used in site-level training for the facilitators to
engage with and understand the good
governance principles. The 14 expert GA
facilitators divided into two groups to practice
this exercise – one group took six principles and
the other considered five principles and noted
strengths and challenges (what is working and
what is not working) of the principles in practice
at their PA and conservation area. The purpose
of this exercise was to ensure that the
facilitators felt confident leading the same
exercise when repeating a GA exercise
independently with their own team of facilitators
and note-takers. Many of the expert facilitators
noted that they enjoyed this exercise because it
was interesting to hear examples of governance
strengths and challenges from other PAs and
conservation areas.

Group exercise on understanding the good

governance principles

www.iied.org 14
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

4.2 Planning a governance assessment

In the afternoon the expert facilitators separated into their PA or conservation areas teams to plan a GA
process from the beginning scoping phase, through data collection and analysis, then the multi-
stakeholder self-assessment, and finally, next steps such as communicating the results and action
planning. The facilitators then rotated to look at each team’s GA plan in turn and discuss the strengths
of the different GA plans and make suggestions for improvement. The purpose of this exercise was to
ensure that facilitators feel confident to support both the planning and implementation of the GA
process in the future, in other words, feel confident to lead a complete governance assessment
process.

Participants planning and reflecting on governance assessment processes

www.iied.org 15
 WORKSHOP REPORT: GOVERNANCE, EQUITY AND THE GREEN LIST, FEBRUARY 2018

Annex 1 List of participants

Name Organisation
Alimakio Zulu CBNRM Forum, Zambia
Barbara Lang Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
Claire Bedelian University College London
Charles Muchunguzi Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Uganda
Dhali Panchanon Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit,
Bangladesh
Elaine Geyer-Allely WWF Kenya
Eric Reson Mara North Conservancy, Kenya
Edigayehu Seyoum-Edjigu CBD Secretariat, Montreal, Canada
Francesca Booker IIED, UK
Jenny Kelleher IUCN, Switzerland
Jess Campese Independent Consultant, US
Joan Kawaka CORDIO, Kenya
Joaquim Cheupe Independent Consultant, Kenya
Joost Van Montfort WWF Netherlands
Joy Mirasol Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit,
Philippines
Kate Schreckenberg ESPA Director and Kings College London, UK
Margret Wambua Laikipia Wildlife Foundation, Kenya
Medard Twinamatsiko Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Uganda
Michael Lenaimado Northern Rangelands Trust, Kenya
Moses Muthoki Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Kenya
Neil Dawson University of East Anglia, UK
Ochen Maiyani Independent Consultant, Kenya
Phil Franks IIED, UK
Richard Kasoo Northern Rangelands Trust, Kenya
Rudolph Dela Cruz Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit,
Philippines
Sarat Gidda CBD Secretariat, Montreal, Canada
Sharif Mostofa Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit,
Bangladesh
Susan Kiringo Northern Rangelands Trust, Kenya

www.iied.org 16
The workshop ‘Governance, Equity and the
Green List‘ was held in Kenya in February Biodiversity
2018. It focused on the multi-stakeholder,
participatory methodology being developed Event Keywords:
Governance; protected areas; conservation;
by IIED in partnership with GIZ and IUCN Materials wellbeing; equity

to assess governance quality at individual

PAs and conservation areas. The workshop
objectives were to: identify and characterise
key governance and equity issues emerging
from experience of using the methodology in
Bangladesh, Philippines, Kenya and Uganda;
critique the methodology and consider
outstanding issues such as monitoring
progress over time and contributing to
improved policy and practice; refine and
clarify key concepts; and build capacity
so that the facilitators present can lead a
governance assessment process in the future
and train others in the methodology. This
report summarises the proceedings.

International Institute for Environment and Development

80-86 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8NH, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 3463 7399
Fax: +44 (0)20 3514 9055
www.iied.org
International Institute for Environment and Development
80-86 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8NH, UK
Funded
Tel: +44by:
(0)20 3463 7399
Fax: +44 (0)20 3514 9055
email: info@iied.org This workshop was part of the project ‘Advancing equity in Protected Area
www.iied.org Conservation: from theory to practice’ (ESPA project number IAF-2017-18-
004) funded with support from the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation
(ESPA) programme. The ESPA programme is funded by the Department for
International Development (DFID), the Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). The event
received additional support from IUCN, who funded the attendance of Kenyan
participants.